Rather than throw your hands up, refute it. Throwing your hands up is no way to argue.

This seems like a place for reasoned discourse. It will help me learn about, and adjust my points of view.

It seems that within the first world sharp corners are being rounded. The results of our endeavors are minimized while personal and emotional issues are becoming a focal point. We expect that the wonderful conditions we enjoy will persist without high standards of existence.

In other words, value is being placed on how we feel about our actions and actions done onto us, versus the effects of those actions on us and the world we live in.

To reduce that a bit further: values are shifting to what seems to be rather than what is.

I am trying to explain myself. These words are rather raw.

I whole heartedly look forward to your response.

Saying objectivism is useless is aggressive and dismissive. Although, I can see what you are getting at.

read like platitudes from a self-help book, rather than serious philosophical concepts.

I find this quote meaningful. It makes a lot of sense to me.

I do suppose that Objectivism can sound attractive because in some ways it is reflective of the state of the world, and I mean that in a very dire sense.

I find the state of the world is closer to the opposite of what is prescribed by Objectivism rather than reflective of it.

The approach of coddling state and incentivizing avoiding individual critical thought and reason is what I see. Two core evils of Objectivism.

Thank you.

I am very fond of physical books. I appreciate the advice.

What is a good starting text from Plato? It seems sensible to start with Plato then move to Aristotle.

To me it seems the reason her philosophy is "unpractical" (she is rolling over in her grave as I use that term) is because it expects too much out of humans.

She would want everyone to say (and fully mean) simultaneously: "I'm on board; pull up the lifeline."

She might argue that the reason that is impossible now-a-days is because of coddling, hand outs, and subscribing to another person's reasoning over one's own reasoning.

I appreciate this comment. She directly mentions Aristotle in the "About the author" section of Atlas Shrugged. I guess Ancient Greece is my next stop. Shall I begin with Plato or Aristotle?

If I enter one of these cults please find me and destroy me.

Am I wrong to try and understand her philosophy? Is there no wisdom within it?

Objectivism is attractive to me given the current state of the world. It is empowering to internalize some of her concepts like: "money being a manifestation of ones best efforts", "action without thought is mindlessness, and thought without action is hypocritical", "celebration is for those who have earned it", etc.. Objectivism has empowered my individuality. It has helped me organize my thoughts and default to reason whenever I feel overwhelmed or exhausted.

This is me explaining a bit of what I have gained from objectivism not as a defense of it but as a statement about why I have appreciated my first foray into philosophy. I understand many of you may think of objectivism as blasphemy so please give me the next logical step in my philosophical journey. I would greatly appreciate thoughtful recommendations on texts to begin reading.

I wrote this stuff (as I sort of explain in the initial question) in order to try and work through my understanding of the philosophy. I wrote quite a few things down but this is just a particular concept where I noticed a circular definition. The concept being Rand's definition of goodness. I am asking for help modifying my formulations! Please help :D

p.s. my initial post should probably be modified so that GOODNESS is a main heading and thought, values, etc are sub headings

Happiness leads to values. Values lead to wealth. Wealth leads to happiness. Happiness leads to values. Thus we have a vicious circle. — -Wheatley

Is it a vicious circle or is it a merry-go-round? :D

Is there a chance you can expound a bit on this?

A few questions I can think of immediately:

• Is this derived from Randian theory or elsewhere?
• Does happiness first occur through experimentation and then your values are instantiated in order to reinforce behavior that lead to happiness?